The Utility of the Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Status in Patients with Temporal and Non-temporal Lobe Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a brief neuropsychological battery that has been validated in the assessment of dementia and other clinical populations. The current study examines the utility of the RBANS in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients with epilepsy completed the RBANS as part of a more comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. Performance on the RBANS was evaluated for patients with a diagnosis of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE; n = 51) and other epilepsy patients (non-TLE, n = 47) in comparison to published norms. Multivariate analysis of variance compared group performances on RBANS indices. Rates of impairment were also compared across groups using cutoff scores of ≤1.0 and ≤1.5 standard deviations below the normative mean. Exploratory hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relations between epilepsy severity factors (i.e., age of onset, disease duration, and number of antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and RBANS performance. RESULTS: TLE and non-TLE patients performed below the normative sample across all RBANS indices. Those with TLE performed worse than non-TLE patients on the Immediate and Delayed Memory indices and exhibited higher rates of general cognitive impairment. Number of AEDs was the only epilepsy severity factor that significantly predicted RBANS total performance, accounting for 14% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the RBANS has utility in evaluating cognition in patients with epilepsy and can differentiate TLE and non-TLE patients. Additionally, number of AEDs appears to be associated with global cognitive performance in adults with epilepsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".